- From: Timothy Stephen Springer <timsp@ssbtechnologies.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:47:12 -0800
- To: "WAI ER group" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
From my understanding no-one is proposing taking the accessibility features out of the complete set of XHTML elements. Merely extending particular modules to allow for document validation based on accessibility. I would agree with the approach that we should create modules that can be included to extend / override the standard XHTML DTD. In fact we could create three modules, one mapping to each priority / conformance level. [Modules for priority 1, 2 and 3.] Content authors could specify modules for their intended conformance level (A, AA, AAA || 1, 2, 3). This would make life much easier for automated diagnostic and repair tools as we would have specified in the HTML the desired conformance level. It should be stressed, though, that XML validating parser and the DTD specification are extremely limited in their ability to define documents. The majority of accessibility problems lie outside of the realm of issues that can be specified using a DTD. The meaningful alt text mentioned in a previous post comes to mind. So while the modular extensions to the XHTML DTD are a great idea I would caution any member of this group from stating that we can produce "verifiably accessible" XHTML documents. With that said: Is anyone interested an working to author and alpha module for P1 && P2? TimS -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:58 AM To: Sean B. Palmer Cc: WAI ER group; Al Gilman Subject: Re: ERT XHTML Module for the WAI That is what the Protocols and Formats group does - and if you want to help we would appreciate it. The net result is more or less the same, except that instead of having to add in a modle for accessibility it is there as one of the basic requirements of the language. Where this becomes interesting is that there are a number of features of a language - event models, including binary content types, mechanism for including alternatives - that are similar across different languages, and it ould be helpful to have clearer specification of wht PF thinks is the way to do this. Some of what I think we are trying to accomplish with the XML guidelines - http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/xmlgl - is to provide this kind of information. I have cc'ed Al Gilman, who is the chair of that group - these are just my personal understandings, and he might be able to shed more official light on the questions... cheers Charles McCN On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Sean B. Palmer wrote: I've been asked for a clarification on what m12n is, and what it means to the WAI. As you all know, XHTML (the W3Cs main document markup language), is only valid if it follows the XHTML DTD - or Document Type Definition. The DTD is the piece of code that tells you exactly what markup is allowed where. Everything that is allowed in XHTML is defined in the DTD. With XHTML m12n (modularization), the HTML WG have split up the DTD into "modules". Each module contains a fragment of the XHTML DTD, i.e. contains the specification/definition for a set of elements and/or attributes. For example, the Image module contains the <img> element and its attributes. What this allows us to do is create our own markup languages using the XHTML modules, creating an XHTML Family. In essence, this allows the general public (us included) to re-write XHTML as we would like it. One can therefore:- 1. Add modules 2. Delete modules 3. Replace modules 4. Modify modules 5. Add elements 6. Add attributes 7. Add entities 8. Change the content model What this means is that XHTML is no longer as inflexible as it used to be - if you don't like some aspect of it, simply re-write it! It gives the power back to the people: no longer do you have to lobby the HTML WG for changes to XHTML, we can simply write them ourselves. What I am suggesting is that we write a "new" module that can be added to XHTML. This module could change XHTML to make it more acessible. As stated before, we could remove presentational elements, add in new semantic ones, put in RDF, and at a stretch change the content model if need be. Why do I believe that this is the domain of the ERT group? Becuse of the name: WAI Evaluation and Repair Tools group. I see this module as being a repair for the inaccessible features of XHTML; it is an XHTML repair tool. It is one that we can write fully by ourselves, with little or no help from the HTML WG - that is why they made m12n in the first place, so people could change XHTML themselves: a sort of DIY XHTML! When the module is done, if people want to use our accessibility features, they can so so by using this bit of code as their DTD (what it does is mix our module with XHTML 1.1):- <!ENTITY % waiert10.mod PUBLIC "-//W3C//MODULE XHTML WAI ERT 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/waiert10.mod" > %waiert10.mod; <!ENTITY % xhtml11.dtd PUBLIC "-//W3C//XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd" > %xhtml11.dtd; [Disclaimer: Please note that the FPI and system URI are only examples, and don't imply W3C support for the modules or the URIs given (i.e. only intended for discussion).] The example I have listed above is only one example of what we could do using m12n. For a fuller list, visit http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_developing.html Hopefully my original message will make a bit more sense now:- > Dear Colleagues, > I recently came up with the idea that the ERT Group could issue an XHTML > Module [1] to take away some of the elements causing accessibility problems > in XHTML 1.1 [2], and add some of our own to improve accessibility. > For example, it would be possible to write this module to do the following > tasks, amongst others:- > 1. Take out some of the presentational elements of HTML (<b> etc.) > 2. Add in some more semantic ones (<annotation>, <anchor>) > 3. Add in RDF etc. [3] > Plus anything else to do with markup changes that the WAI feel are > necessary, or useful, to make to XHTML 1.1, in order to improve > accessibility. I welcome suggestions on both this proposal, and what kind of > things you would like to see in the module if you feel it's a good idea. > > A short FAQ: > > 1. What is Modularization (m12n)? See > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/introduction.html#s_intro_whatismo > d > > 2. Why Modularize XHTML (In particular, why should the ERT group create an > XHTML Module)? > [[[ > The modularization of XHTML refers to the task of specifying well-defined > sets of XHTML elements that can be combined and extended by document > authors, document type architects, other XML standards specifications, and > application and product designers to make it economically feasible for > content developers to deliver content on a greater number and diversity of > platforms. > ]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/introduction.html#s_intro > > > References:- > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/dtd_module_rules.html#s_dtd_module > _rules > "Modularization of XHTML; Building DTD Modules" > Robert Adams, Murray Altheim, Shane P. McCarron, et al. > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ > "XHTMLT 1.1 - Module-based XHTML" > Murray Altheim, Shane P. McCarron > [3] http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/modules/rdf/rdf.mod > "An RDF Dublin Core module for XHTML" > Sean B. Palmer Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/ "Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics." - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07. -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia September - November 2000: W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 13:49:16 UTC